moving on, but i'll just remind you of this one more time for now: do you know what happens when i climax/orgasm?

nothing.

because i'm incapable of ejaculating.

this process is called chemical castration and involves taking drugs that prevent the production of testosterone. when you don't produce testosterone, your testes don't work and you can neither produce sperm, nor ejaculate.

i didn't mark it on the calendar, but i haven't been able to ejaculate in well over ten years.

i've been trying to get my testes removed for years now, but cannot find a doctor willing to perform the procedure, voluntarily. i have been given funding by the ministry (finally.), and will probably need to spend a weekend in toronto doing it, despite the fact that there's probably 100 people between here and there that are qualified to do it but refuse to.

so, it's a very slow process.

if i'm lucky, i might get all of the is dotted to get me to srs by the time i'm 70, but probably not.

i'm sorry to be crude, but i have to do this every once in a while to wake people up a little, as that naturalistic fallacy is pretty pervasive, and hard to shake.

like, you could maybe pin me down, or talk me into sitting still for a few minutes, if you like your cock soft and slimy and undersized from twenty years of testosterone blockers, but you'd might as well just buy a dildo; at the least, i promise you you'll get a harder and more dynamic fuck from a carrot than you ever will from me...

when you don't have the biology to carry out your fantasies, there's no use in pretending that you do.

everybody's left unsatisfied, and frustrated and sad.

i've made women cry by riding their legs....

so, i just don't.

i'm way too sub to even be gay.

any gay guy would throw me off of him, and say "i'm not straight. stop.". i'd be riding him like a dirty slut; it would just confuse him.

there's no use in pretending - it's just a waste of time.

intentionally or not, though, what i'm doing seems to be working.

if you don't want to be tracked, this would appear to be an effective algorithm:

1) don't buy cell access. at all.
2) don't carry a phone or other device with wireless access.
3) use google voice to call out, at least
4) i use a voip box for incoming calls

again: it's just because i don't want to spend the money. i'd rather go see concerts than talk on the phone.

however, i appear to be frustrating them very thoroughly....

it's all circumstantial and deductive, and i'm not getting into it, but i'm realizing this...

it's becoming increasingly clear to me that the cops are so reliant on tracking people with cell phones at this point that they don't know what to do when they find people without one.

they seem to think i'm lying, and are just trying to get my number from me using various shady tactics. they can't understand that i don't have one, and don't seem to be trained to deal with the possibility as real.

ok, so i'm going to post this again in this space, to make the point as clear as i can.

i live in windsor, ontario. i am a male-to-female transgendered person that is functionally celibate. while i wonder if i may have been raped a few times, i have not intentionally had sex in upwards of 15 years and don't really see the point in identifying as anything beyond "asexual" at this point. i use female pronouns and refer to myself as 'jessica'.

while i did eventually buy a chinese cell phone a few years ago that i've turned on something like twice before i decided it was boring, i do not have cell service, and do not carry a cell phone. it's not turned off, it's not hidden, it's not encrypted - it doesn't exist.

i am currently typing from a chromebook, which i also use as a phone. i call out using google voice. i don't know if or how such a thing can be tracked and, frankly, it's not my problem, if it can't be. i don't have any reason to care if i'm trackable or not, although if i had a choice i'd choose not to be.

as it is, the reason i don't pay for a cell service is that it costs a lot of money. my income is $1230/month ($1170 from odsp & $60 from a tax credit run by the province), and my rent is $750. my only bill is internet, which i pay $35/month for. i budget for $200 for food, and it's variable - sometimes more, sometimes less.

1230 - 750 - 200 - 35 = 245

i don't even know what it costs to connect to the cell towers anymore, but i know it's expensive. as buying cell phone access to the tower would take up 30-50% of my remaining income, i decided a very long time ago that it was a waste of money, and that is the reason that i do not have cell service - if i spent all my money on a cell phone that i don't really need or want, i wouldn't have any money to spend on anything else. it's a bonus that i can't be tracked, but that's not the intent - i just can't afford a cell phone, or, i guess more accurately, i've decided that i'd rather spend limited resources on things i care about.

i do not have a driver's license, and have never driven a car. that is another way i avoid wasting money. it's a bonus that it is good for the climate, but i wouldn't want to waste money on a car, regardless.

so, i'm very, very cheap, and that's the reason you can't track me.

i'm not avoiding anything, i just don't have the money to utilize the tracking devices that law enforcement are so heavily reliant on.

i'm harmless, and the decision to spy on me is based on ignorance and stupidity. however, this is something to think about: given the cost of technology, if the police become reliant on it to track threatening individuals, they may find themselves in this problem more often. if you're going to create a society rooted in absurd amounts of inequality, this is the outcome - the criminals can't afford the technology you want to use to spy on them with.

trying to coerce me into giving you a number, or communicating over a phone i don't have and can't afford and don't want, isn't going to lead to anything but frustration by everybody.

i use voip for incoming calls, and i don't know or care if that's trackable, either. i would get a free google voice number, but it's not available in canada.

if you were to cancel google voice in canada, i would use a pay phone to call out, as the primary determinant is cost and that's by far the cheapest option.

poor people are hard to trace with technology because they can't afford it.

deal with it.

as much as i don't like doug ford, i like the city council in windsor even less, and would actually like to see the conservatives get pretty tough on it, in an attempt to clear it out.

i'm not a fiscal conservative - i want to see them spend the money, but they continually waste millions on these stupid projects that nobody gives a fuck about.

we've got homeless people all over the city...

and, i'd rather see them fix the damned roads.

https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/windsor-council-to-mull-550k-commitment-to-kickstart-civic-plaza-project-1.5074391

if you ask them, they say absolutely vacuous things like "i don't want to spend the money in the community, because somebody will think we're favouring their region".

well, then spend money all over the city.

i would consequently support the province more or less cutting them off, until they provide less stupid ways to spend money.

and, then they told us it was "temporary".

the story around the anti ep is maybe a more useful model, in terms of finding creative ways to protest authoritarian restrictions on freedom of association and expression.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/78ab5d/warp-25-autechre-anti-ep

and, yes - it's becoming increasingly clear that a protest movement against these restrictions is going to be necessary, once what they're actually doing crystallizes in front of us.

once we all understand what they're doing, we will stand up and fight back.

again: i don't think this kind of thing is particularly useful, so long as the pigs are keeping it in their pants.

https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/maskless-shopping-trip-goes-ahead-with-low-turnout-1.5075346

they used to run this on tv as a propaganda nag, for all the couch potato parents that had to answer...

"no, actually, i don't."

what is this song actually about? who gets it and who doesn't?

it's really neither about being pro-partying or anti-partying, so much as it is about mocking crusty conservative portrayals of the corruption of the youth. the video really represents what some reagan conservative might have imagined a party of young people was like, but hardly actually existed in real life.

this is a problem i've run into with the songs i wrote when i was young, as well - sometimes you intend to get across an idea, and don't get it across the way you want to, leading to confusion or ambiguity. it seems to be common for people to accuse each other of misunderstanding the song; i'm going to place the blame on the band. it's legitimately not clear what they're trying to get across, as they were certainly neither advocates of absurd behaviour as portrayed in the video, nor of the kind of conservative value systems that would shut it down. the subtlety has maybe been lost in time.

so, it's absurdist humour, but it's making a serious point, too. the mockery is more reflective of perceptions people had in the 80s surrounding the difference between "good" and "bad" people; while such parties probably existed nowhere on the actual planet, it's a reasonable reflection of how you would hear older people talk about younger people, and the corruption of the youth and whatnot. you do need to fight for your rights to free expression, or you will lose them, as much fun as it is to be silly about conservative portrayals of the lifestyles of the young.

"it's 11:00 pm. do you know where your children are?"

they're probably not quite doing what you see in the video, but maybe you imagine they are. that's the joke, here.

in context, the most facile interpretation is the most relevant one - they're coming for you, and you'd better stand up, or face the consequences for you and your children, and your children's children.

if you don't stand up for your rights, you will lose them.

further, i would launch a charter challenge against the police for infringing on freedom of assembly, amongst other things.

i would rip the ticket up, and refuse to even defend myself in court.

if you don't want to go to the party, don't.

only i have the right to decide how valuable my existence is to myself.

and, it's consequently my responsibility to avoid gatherings if it means something to me - and my right to participate in them, if it doesn't.

it's not up to some government bureaucrats to tell me what my life is worth to me.

are they going to criminalize suicide, next?

enough is enough - when's the election in bc?

https://vancouversun.com/news/covid-19-b-c-announces-fines-up-to-2000-for-those-who-disobey-public-he

based on this picture, mackay is far more attractive.

right?

right....

there's a joke in canadian politics that the best looking candidate always wins, and it's usually true.

if an election were held tomorrow, that is if trudeau can't find a razor soon, he's not going to be the best looking candidate on the ballot, anymore.

the liberals were always said to campaign on the left and govern on the right, so you did expect them to break some promises.

but, the gulf between what they said they would do in 2015 and where we are in 2020 is far, far greater than that produced by any other incarnation of the party.

and, they are running out of time to close it.

i liked chretien better.

by a large margin.

when we elected this incarnation of the liberals, there was some suggestion that they were learning from their recent electoral failures and listening to the voters in the country, but they quickly broke every promise they made, and positioned themselves on a trajectory to the very hard right.

the result is that this incarnation of the liberals is actually the least liberal incarnation that we've seen in decades, and needs to be punished the most.

trudeau's been looking pretty disgusting, lately.

he's gotta get a handle on that, too, or he's going to lose women.

peter mackay is justin trudeau with better hygiene, in a blue tie.

i'm just going to be clear about this mackay v trudeau thing.

mackay is a largely non-ideological old money aristocrat that in truth isn't very smart and is just going to do what the banks tell him.

that is, he's exactly the same thing as justin trudeau.

there was a time when the liberals were better than this, but we need to learn from reality as it happens, and one of his legacies is that they aren't, anymore. they were always a bankers' party, but they were a smart bankers' party; today, they're just the same neo-liberal front group as any other late capitalist institution is.

so, the reason mackay seems so much less scary than conservatives of past years has less to do with mackay being some kind of "moderate", and more to do with how far to the right that trudeau (and his cronies, apparently led mostly by freeland) has pulled the party.

it's very hard to argue that you need to vote for the liberals to keep the conservatives out when the conservatives and liberals are essentially the same thing. i'm consequently not particularly scared of voting for a third party to punish the liberals, under the understanding that the conservatives will probably win.

the other three candidates have ideologies, and the calculus is not the same, with them. o'toole is scheer part two (or day part three) and sloan scares the hell out of me. they will have their own agendas, and will need to be stopped.

but, mackay is just a mindless front, who doesn't have an original thought in his pretty little airhead to even mention.

we'll see how the pieces fall on the board, but i'm likely to be more aggressive about supporting a third party in the imminent election, because the differences between the two major parties are going to end up too minimal to really discern as meaningful.

and, the liberals do not have much time to reverse that perception - and even seem to be moving in the opposite direction, of trying to leap-frog the conservatives to the right.

i'm cleaning some things up, and to clarify a point....

the beaker folk, from what we understand, are thought to have been a kind of hybrid culture of indo-european & neolithic types. that is, they were the neolithic peoples of western europe undergoing their first contact point with the indo-european groups, rather than a new group of people moving in altogether. as we try to understand history via continuity more than migration nowadays (and it's easy to see by flipping through this that i'm ok with a pre-history full of violent dominance and overthrow), we tend to be careful and conservative in how we morph one population into another.

so, i referred to the beaker folk as descendants of the neolithic inhabitants of europe, thought to have ultimately been from ancient turkey & the caucusus (an area that was more phenotypically "white" then than it is now) - and that is true, genetically. but, archaeologists are likely to push back a little, because they know that this population, while genetically descendent from the neolithic peoples, also adopted cultural practices (which is what archaeologists can study and see) from the new indo-european migrants and invaders.

should i have been more careful? well, in context, i was talking about genetics. i used an archaeological term to refer to a genetic clade, which was maybe a bit sloppy, but i think it's common practice, isn't it? 

perhaps the more pertinent point is to remind the archaeologists that they aren't geneticists, and that while their work may be useful in determining the flow of pottery and burial practices, it doesn't help us understand the genetic history of the region, or what the people looked like.

so, were the beaker people of spain descendants of the neolithic inhabitants of the region? yes, absolutely - even if the pottery that gives them their name came in later, from the northeast.

there's actually a new gaytheist (a portmanteau of gay and atheist) record out, and i'm not going to post too deep a review because this is a silly punk band, but i'll draw your attention to it as worth checking out. he's got that creamy corgan distortion sound up front, which is fundamentally rooted in an old muff, and is nice to hear given that it's a little bit endangered nowadays. there's nothing profound here, but you don't expect it; you expect a good kick in the ass, and they're as good at that here as elsewhere.

  

this is the social democratic party in russia, that you would vote for and support if you were an actual liberal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Just_Russia

they're usually the fourth party, in state elections.

let's try this.

navalny.

i want you to highlight that text and right-click it. i don't know what os or browser you are using, but virtually all of them nowdays should have an entry in the menu that says something like "search using google" or "search using duckduckgo" or whatever.

try it.

see what happens.

as a general rule, you want to look at multiple sources of information regarding anything you read on the internet, and be in the habit of doing thorough searches around anything you find the least bit confusing.

if something doesn't make sense to you, run a search and see what come up.

it really takes a lot of temerity, though, to publish lies on the internet under the understanding that most people are going to interact with them in the context of a search engine. you have to be exceedingly confident in the absolute incompetence of your audience...

well, except his job for the cia.

of course.

:).

it's just like this guy guaido in venezuela, who the msm likes to pretend is the president of venezuela.

juan guaido doesn't currently have a job, as far as i know.

how many opposition leaders in africa or the middle east have starved in prisons over the last fifty years, while america cashes arms sales cheques from the dictators that put them in there? hundreds? thousands?

they don't care about democracy.

he's being rescued because he belongs to us.

all your navalnies are belong to us.

i mean, is that much not obvious?

are we going to fly every dissident out of every country? that's laughable.

we're flying this guy out because he's on the payroll, he's an asset.

why are we going out of our way to save a nazi?

because he's our nazi!

you can still debunk most of this trash in thirty seconds with a knowledgeable google search.

we don't know how long that will remain true for, but i'll probably be removed from the internet before it isn't.

i'm not going to go through every article and rip them all apart, it's not worth my time.

but, the lies and disinformation from the msm around this are really pretty startling, and you should take the absurdity around it for what it is.

i hope he dies in transit....

so, the cia propaganda around navalny is ratcheting up...

this ridiculous gem comes from the washington post:

"navalny is russia's best known opposition leader"

in fact, his party currently has 0 seats in the duma.

the best known opposition leader in russia is likely gennady zyuganov, who is the leader of the communist party, which holds 42 seats in the duma, to united russia's 343. the third party is the ldpr (a very right-wing party), which holds 39 seats.

i know - you're going to tell me navalny was not allowed to run.

that's right, he wasn't - because he's a nazi. russia's rules may be a little more strict than i'd support, but there are quite a few countries in the world that bar nazis from seeking high office, that's not that odd.

why would they pass a law, if they're going to allow an exemption in the highest risk situation?

because it isn't about stopping the spread of a virus with an infinitesimal fatality rate, it's about getting in your head and telling you what to do.

https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/mayor-refines-order-masks-not-required-during-religious-services/

am i more afraid of the cops than the virus?

yes.

you'd be daft, if you weren't, given the statistics.

the health unit here is getting more patriarchal, in barking orders that it expects people to just obey.

there were two cases in the county here, yesterday. it's not remotely proportional; it's panic, just complete absurdity.

i don't have any reason to go anywhere for quite a while, so i should be able to wait for a few days. but, if the reports are that the cops are coming in and beating people up, i'll have to order the plague mask....

if i give it a few days, and if the cops are keeping it in their pants, then whatever.

maybe i should order a costume, now.

i'm sure i could find some other scenario in which i could use it.

i'll even go to jail over this, for a day or two, if i have to.

but, when they start pulling guns out?

i'm not fucking around with armed people that have iqs < 100 and literally get off by acting like thugs.

i'm not joking.

if this ends with somebody pointing a gun at me, i am going to get a plague costume and wear it as a form of protest.

i admit i'd wear a mask list this, in the right scenario.

or, i guess, if coerced at gunpoint.

that is the only exception.

this picture is perfectly ironic.

do you understand why?

hey, joe. you know she's just as likely to kill you by shaking your hand as she is by breathing on you, right?

no? you don't?

if these superstitions and empty rituals mean something to you, do them at home; don't force your beliefs on me, as i'm not buying them.

gotta catch me first, motherfuckers.

no, i'm not going to sit and listen to biden speak and deconstruct it. ew. gross.

you'd have to tie me down, clockwork orange style...

thus...

http://www.zarathushtra.com/z/gatha/dji/gathtml.htm

“If there be light, then there is darkness; if cold, heat; if height, depth; if solid, fluid; if hard, soft; if rough, smooth; if calm, tempest; if prosperity, adversity; if life, death.”
― Pythagoras

From the Ionians, the Pythagoreans adopted the idea of cosmic opposites, which they—perhaps secondarily—applied to their number speculation. The principal pair of opposites is the limit and the unlimited; the limit (or limiting), represented by the odd (3,5,7,…), is an active force effecting order, harmony, and “cosmos” in the unlimited, represented by the even. All kinds of opposites somehow “fit together” within the cosmos, as they do, microcosmically, in an individual person and in the Pythagorean society. There was also a Pythagorean “table of ten opposites,” to which Aristotle has referred—limit-unlimited, odd-even, one-many, right-left, male-female, rest-motion, straight-curved, light-darkness, good-evil, and square-oblong. The arrangement of this table reflects a dualistic conception, which was apparently not original with the school, however, or accepted by all of its members.

https://www.britannica.com/science/Pythagoreanism/Metaphysics-and-number-theory

the early christians (who descended from pythagoreans on the greek side of the lineage) assigned many statements of the type to jesus, and they're all over the bible.

i can't find any direct quotes right now, but it's also the kind of thing that you would expect zoroaster to have said, specifically about duality.

as an aside, one may wonder if pushing duality may harm him with south indian voters.

if you want to accuse him of anything, it's of having the vocabulary of a child.

in fact, these words are largely vacuous pabulum, and they could be attributed just as easily to zoroaster, or perhaps pythagoras.

it's really such trite bullshit, that i'm just as happy to assume it's random coincidence.

"up, not down. near, not far. hot, not cold. just right!" - grover expanding upon goldilocks

but, i mean...if you heard a three-year old say it....

https://nationalpost.com/news/joe-biden-accused-of-plagiarizing-from-jack-laytons-final-letter-in-nomination-speech

the way that we actually do things in canada is that we throw the damned liberals out for long enough that they get scared, and then elect them to fix what got them thrown out in the first place.

while a small number of our most important accomplishments and legislations would not exist without the ndp....

the truth is that they were, broadly, horrible, the whole time.

....and are still broadly horrible, today.

there's a bit of a history of ei in canada here (from a "progressive" source) that explains that it was basically lifted from fdr by a conservative, and then fixed and expanded by the liberal oligarch mackenzie-king, the longest serving pm in the country's history, and also the country's first labour minister.

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/employment-insurance/a-short-history-of-ei-and-a-look-at-the-road-ahead/

there was an actual labour party in canada, and it did get absorbed by the ndp, but it was relatively small in scope and function.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Labour_MPs_(Canada)

more generally speaking, it's important not to conflate populism or progressivism with socialism.

they're really fundamentally different ideas, but that's the argument underlying the association.

the major unions in canada have actually generally tended to support the liberals for the majority of the history of the country, and actually still do today.

the flirtation of unionism in canada with the ndp was, if anything, somewhat of a shift to the right, and appears to have been rather short-lived.

This brings us to the NDP, the only mass labour-based political party in North America.

this has always been a myth, at best.

the ndp were a labour-based party for maybe five years in the 80s, or something; it's more accurate to argue that broadbent inherited a very different type of party and tried to turn it into a labour party, but then the fuckers brought in nafta and pulled the rug out from under him.

the ndp were actually rooted in a christian religious movement, not in a labour movement. they come not from factories and cities, but from farms and rural regions; it's more puritan in origin, in truth, than it is derived from sinclair or dickens. these people were not fighting for the rights of wage workers to organize into industrial unions, but for the rights of farmers to control and manipulate the market. they didn't pass minimum wage laws, or regulations to improve working conditions and these sorts of things, so much as they fought to prevent anarchy in the production of corn, to set fixed prices for grain and things of the sort that are strictly important to rural farmers.

they were a party of the middle class, not of the proletariat, and they reflected the values of the middle class, in their embrace of the centrality of religion and the bigotry that follows from religion.

the healthcare system they brought in came from their history managing grain production and was really a form of supply management that was closer to obamacare than the single payer system that the liberals preferred, and brought in by modeling the system after the nhs; it was about leveraging insurance companies by pooling resources. tommy douglas was important in bringing this in, but he didn't design it and he never had the support to do it by himself. the liberals were always the senior partner, writer and organizer of the existing healthcare system, not douglas or the ndp, and for better or worse - douglas would not have supported single-payer on his own, but the liberals thought pharmacare was a step too far in distorting the market.

douglas, a clear social conservative, was eventually pushed out as old and out of touch with the boomers, who were....the boomers, i.e. not very socially conservative. it was only at this point that the ndp starts to look more like a workers party, and it was more successful for a short period, but then they brought in nafta...

so, let's stop pretending the ndp were ever a worker's party. they weren't, really. they were really a utopian christian party run by propertied farmers that were trying to avoid getting swallowed and eaten by another depression, and who applied some of the supply management techniques they were using to health care - an innovative solution that eventually transcended their other policies, and came to define them almost in total, despite being just a minimal example of a larger approach to farming, rather than to  proletariat workmanship.

ok.

so, i avoided a major migraine, at least. the fan is still broken, but i got a lot of hair out before the last power wash, so we'll see when it dries....

i have a mild headache that i'll want to keep an eye on, but i'm going to try to get some work done tonight.

but, the tl;dr is just simply that the ndp & liberals are truly indistinguishable, and that they have been for 30 years.

that's the other thing about hearing a candidate stand up in 2020 and argue they're going to sweep into power by organizing workers.

where?

mexico?

what happened, though?

it was nafta. first the '88 election, then the '93 election, then the collapse of the manufacturing sector. then layton came in and swung the party hard to the right because he had to because there weren't any workers left.

the ndp removed the word "socialist" from their platform some time in the 00s (i don't remember when).

then, they elected thomas mulcair, who was to the right of margaret thatcher, and followed it up by jagmeet singh, who still hasn't told us why he's running, yet.

but, it was nafta that killed them, and they haven't been the same since.

so, if you're in your late 70s and still think it is the late 70s, we need to insert a giant nope, here. the ndp bear essentially no resemblance to the parties of broadbent, lewis and douglas, sometimes for the better (they've dropped their bigoted opposition to queer rights, at least on the surface, although if you ask around it's not total) and sometimes for the worst (they're essentially a milquetoast neo-liberal party like the rest of them, and have been for decades, now).

and, no, the ndp couldn't merge with a new party of the left.

'cause they just ain't.

in my lifetime, the ndp have never been anything more interesting than a superfluous adjunct of the liberals, that just causes the country problems. i've argued vehemently against merger, but it's because i want to bring back a three-party system, not because i think they're worth supporting, as they are. if a new party arises on the left, i would strongly advise the ndp to merge with the liberals, rather than try and drag the process on.

clinton, gore, obama, biden, harris - these are all conservatives, in canada.

kerry was almost a liberal, maybe; lieberman certainly wasn't.

things may have been different before 1980 or so, but, in my lifetime, the democrats have basically always lined up best with the conservatives, not the liberals. meanwhile, the liberals have generally been closer to the greens than the democrats.

the reform movement in canada may have tried to align itself with republican insanity, but it never really took off, and there was never really a time in my life where there was a viable republican-like party in canada.

here's another legacy of jack layton.

https://socialistaction.ca/2011/04/03/the-tragedy-of-ndp-support-for-nato-bombing-of-libya/